Advertisements

A Man/Woman-On-Street Survey I Would Love to See

Do you believe in evolution? If so, or if not, what does “evolution” mean, and what are the claims made by those who promote evolution?

Do you believe in creation? If so, or if not, what does “creation” mean, and what are the claims made by those who promote creation?

Do you believe in intelligent design? If so, or if not, what does “intelligent design” mean, and what are the claims made by those who promote intelligent design?

I’m pretty sure that the average person would respond with: I have no idea what are you talking about — I don’t even know what those words mean.

Those of us who are involved in this entire discussion (whether ID proponents or academic Darwinists) should recognize that, percentage-wise, almost no one has the faintest idea what we are talking about. Furthermore, they don’t give a damn.

17 Responses to A Man/Woman-On-Street Survey I Would Love to See

“Those of us who are involved in this entire discussion (whether ID proponents or academic Darwinists) should recognize that, percentage-wise, almost no one has the faintest idea what we are talking about. Furthermore, they don’t give a damn.”

is no good lead to discouragement, no? must always express attitude optimistic, yes? for triumph for God in end, yes?

However, the fact that Darwinian orthodoxy and indoctrination has actually convinced people with high IQs and Ph.Ds in academe that random errors filtered by natural selection, given enough time, can transform a microbe into Mozart, gives me little hope that rationality or evidence can prevail among such people.

My minimally residual optimism comes from the fact that such transparently stupid ideas appear to be held mainly by people who have gone to graduate school, which seems to perform a lobotomy on otherwise perfectly useful brains.

I really would be interested to see the results of my proposed survey.

When one looks back at the opinions shared by the 20th century’s leading lights — the following merely being a well-put elucidation of what has been commonly held — there can be little wonder that so many of the events that the period marked were so irretrievably dismal.

That man is but the product of natural causes; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system; that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. —Bertrand Russell

You’re absolutely right Gil. So many people who believe darwinism is a fact are clueless as to what it really entails….yet they staunchly DEFEND it.

They accept it without question because they are told to by the media and by teachers/professors who were told to accept it without question as well. I can’t count the number of times a darwin-defender has cited ‘evidence’ that has since been refuted (e.g Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings, peppered moth, junk dna, etc.)

I reckon this probably cuts both ways Gil — people on both sides are ignorant, but will be swayed by their cultural surroundings. Thus saturating the culture with darwinTV will convert the ignorant masses to Darwinism, and ChristianTV will convert the ignorant masses to Churchism.

I can tell you. The other night I was watching a TV show about snakes on one of the nature channels. It was absolutely fascinating. Snakes are indeed very interesting creatures. At least every few minutes the narrator made comments like: “Then evolution produced this feature. This other feature was created by evolution because it had a survival advantage. The snake’s venom evolved from a less-toxic precursor venom from a previous species.”

Obviously, I’m not quoting exactly, but the entire program was infested with regularly introduced and completely unsubstantiated declarations of the creative powers of “evolution,” with absolutely no evidence or justification, or even what “evolution” means in terms of the mechanisms and probabilities involved.

This kind of thing is passed off as “science” on a regular basis in the popular media, when, in fact, it is purely unjustified speculation — the antithesis of legitimate science.

“Obviously, I’m not quoting exactly, but the entire program was infested with regularly introduced and completely unsubstantiated declarations of the creative powers of “evolution,” with absolutely no evidence or justification, or even what “evolution” means in terms of the mechanisms and probabilities involved.”

perhaps enforcement of time limit prohibit evidence and explain presentations that are many and long. program become all day long, no? ha ha

“Obviously, I’m not quoting exactly, but the entire program was infested with regularly introduced and completely unsubstantiated declarations of the creative powers of “evolution,” with absolutely no evidence or justification, or even what “evolution” means in terms of the mechanisms and probabilities involved.”

If you want an exegesis on the evolutionary origins of snakes, read the scientific literature. If you want the potted version, watch a reputable TV channel. If you want reinforcement of your intellectual prejudices, buy a dog.